Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:06:40 AM EDT
Just in. How the FUCK could that possibly be construed
As constitutional ?

What the fuck is wrong with these people?


FUCK.

Discuss.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 10:07:23 AM EDT
not surprised.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 10:34:57 AM EDT
I thought they should pull it the moment Scalia was assassinated (or died). An almost guaranteed 4 / 4 split would be a waste of time and money.

Link Posted: 6/20/2016 10:51:33 AM EDT
The good news is that while the lower court decision (unfavorable) stands, the Supreme Court only denied the cert, meaning that they chose not to hear the case. They didn't make a summary judgment or allow a ruling to be made that could be cited as supreme court precedent. (Denial of a writ of certiorari is not precidential). For each case that the Supreme Court chooses to hear, the choose not to hear about 100 more. (Each year the supreme court hears in the vicinity of 80 cases, but receives between 8000 and 10000 petitions). I had a professor who would illustrate that fact very nicely with a power point. On one slide it listed the cases that were granted cert on some specific date. There were a couple of cases listed, large font, spaced out nicely. On the next slide she listed cases that were denied cert on the same day. Every corner of the slide was covered, the font was small, cases named one after another- nor could it have been said that all of those cases were meritless. The supreme court chooses what they want to hear.

For us, that is kind of good. Given the composition of the court, the best we could hope for is a 4-4 and a decision to rehear the case later. The other option at 4-4 would have been the decision being upheld and potentially negative national precedent.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 10:52:00 AM EDT
All is not lost.



What if Trump wins, and he appoints some pro-2a judges?



Can't they later decide to take the case and strike it down once the balance tips in our favor?

Link Posted: 6/20/2016 10:52:11 AM EDT
So civil rights as related to guns are only subject to itermediate scrutiny, and although the firearms are protected by the 2nd, its OK to infringe on our rights, because of feelings.

Sad day for our Constitution and for liberty in general.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 11:11:49 AM EDT
Well the good old college try at the soap box, ballot box, and jury box was fun and all.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 11:26:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:
The good news is that while the lower court decision (unfavorable) stands, the Supreme Court only denied the cert, meaning that they chose not to hear the case. They didn't make a summary judgment or allow a ruling to be made that could be cited as supreme court precedent. (Denial of a writ of certiorari is not precidential). For each case that the Supreme Court chooses to hear, the choose not to hear about 100 more. (Each year the supreme court hears in the vicinity of 80 cases, but receives between 8000 and 10000 petitions). I had a professor who would illustrate that fact very nicely with a power point. On one slide it listed the cases that were granted cert on some specific date. There were a couple of cases listed, large font, spaced out nicely. On the next slide she listed cases that were denied cert on the same day. Every corner of the slide was covered, the font was small, cases named one after another- nor could it have been said that all of those cases were meritless. The supreme court chooses what they want to hear.

For us, that is kind of good. Given the composition of the court, the best we could hope for is a 4-4 and a decision to rehear the case later. The other option at 4-4 would have been the decision being upheld and potentially negative national precedent.
View Quote

I'm no lawyer, nor did I say at a Holliday Inn last night. But I too in my limited legal knowledge see this as basically good news for now. As indicated the refusal to grant cert and not hear the case/arguments means there is no official SCOTUS opinion/ruling like Miller, Heller and McDonald. There are probably many reasons why cert wasn't granted with the Shew v Malloy case.

With the passing of Scalia the ruling on the NY/CT AWB challenge would have, at best, been a 4-4 ruling provided Roberts didn't flip. If Roberts (or one of the other four had flipped then we would have been screwed. With a 4-4 tie ruling the CT a law would have remained standing (as I understand it).

The passing of Scalia was horrible for the Bill of Rights and for the Constitution at large. Now there is talk/speculation that Thomas may announce his retirement after the November election. If Hillary wins and Thomas does announce his retirement that would create a titanic shift in the court to lean hard left with a 6-3 progressive leaning court. Because as we all know Hillary will nominate two far left justices to replace Scalia and Thomas and the GOP congress (if they retain the Senate) will simply roll over and confirm, after some noisy foot stomping for the cameras, who ever Hillary nominates.

Chances are high that such a 6-3 left leaning court will gladly and gleefully hear in its first year a case concerning guns so they can begin to roll back Heller and McDonald before moving on to many other progressive desires they seek to push at the barrel of the government guns upon the citizens of this country.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 12:07:57 PM EDT
WSFB having a poll you can hit. Right now heavily in our favor. Also, life streaming of the Remington case is being shown. http://www.wfsb.com/

Rome
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 12:08:38 PM EDT
For now it probably is a good thing. There still remains 43 free states, when the wife retires in 2 years we'll be in one of them.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 12:13:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
WSFB having a poll you can hit. Right now heavily in our favor. Also, life streaming of the Remington case is being shown. http://www.wfsb.com/

Rome
View Quote


Poll is 90% in our favor at this time (12:13pm)
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 12:16:20 PM EDT
If you guys think they'll ever vote to get rid of the AWBs you're high as fuck.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 12:21:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sardo_67:
If you guys think they'll ever vote to get rid of the AWBs you're high as fuck.
View Quote


I know they won't but it just proves that they dont give 2 shits about what the public agrees with. but the poll just asked "Do you think a gunmaker or firearms seller should bear some responsibility following a mass shooting?" yea fuck that


Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:31:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:
The good news is that while the lower court decision (unfavorable) stands, the Supreme Court only denied the cert, meaning that they chose not to hear the case. They didn't make a summary judgment or allow a ruling to be made that could be cited as supreme court precedent. (Denial of a writ of certiorari is not precidential). For each case that the Supreme Court chooses to hear, the choose not to hear about 100 more. (Each year the supreme court hears in the vicinity of 80 cases, but receives between 8000 and 10000 petitions). I had a professor who would illustrate that fact very nicely with a power point. On one slide it listed the cases that were granted cert on some specific date. There were a couple of cases listed, large font, spaced out nicely. On the next slide she listed cases that were denied cert on the same day. Every corner of the slide was covered, the font was small, cases named one after another- nor could it have been said that all of those cases were meritless. The supreme court chooses what they want to hear.

For us, that is kind of good. Given the composition of the court, the best we could hope for is a 4-4 and a decision to rehear the case later. The other option at 4-4 would have been the decision being upheld and potentially negative national precedent.
View Quote




With a Supreme Court with eight Justices, not taking this case is in a way a victory on our side.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:36:10 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomtbo:




With a Supreme Court with eight Justices, not taking this case is in a way a victory on our side.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomtbo:
Originally Posted By JAD:
The good news is that while the lower court decision (unfavorable) stands, the Supreme Court only denied the cert, meaning that they chose not to hear the case. They didn't make a summary judgment or allow a ruling to be made that could be cited as supreme court precedent. (Denial of a writ of certiorari is not precidential). For each case that the Supreme Court chooses to hear, the choose not to hear about 100 more. (Each year the supreme court hears in the vicinity of 80 cases, but receives between 8000 and 10000 petitions). I had a professor who would illustrate that fact very nicely with a power point. On one slide it listed the cases that were granted cert on some specific date. There were a couple of cases listed, large font, spaced out nicely. On the next slide she listed cases that were denied cert on the same day. Every corner of the slide was covered, the font was small, cases named one after another- nor could it have been said that all of those cases were meritless. The supreme court chooses what they want to hear.

For us, that is kind of good. Given the composition of the court, the best we could hope for is a 4-4 and a decision to rehear the case later. The other option at 4-4 would have been the decision being upheld and potentially negative national precedent.




With a Supreme Court with eight Justices, not taking this case is in a way a victory on our side.


Yup! Not hearing it was the best outcome for everyone!
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 2:56:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nutter:
Yup! Not hearing it was the best outcome for everyone!
View Quote

Yes both sides can claim a win strange as it sounds. Their side for the law not being ruled unconstitutional, and our side for the law not being ruled constitutional.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 3:28:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2016 3:29:30 PM EDT by JAD]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:

Yes both sides can claim a win strange as it sounds. Their side for the law not being ruled unconstitutional, and our side for the law not being ruled constitutional.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By nutter:
Yup! Not hearing it was the best outcome for everyone!

Yes both sides can claim a win strange as it sounds. Their side for the law not being ruled unconstitutional, and our side for the law not being ruled constitutional.


The unfortunate part is that the lower courts did find the laws constitutional, which stands. What we can take solace in is that there is still hope in other circuits. (Though we really should hope that the states in them aren't ever put into that situation)
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 5:08:23 PM EDT
If Hillary or Bernie get elected we can kiss this country goodbye for years to come.

With the passing of Scalia and the impending retirement of Thomas the court would go 6-3 in favor of the commies. There is another possible retirement too, Roberts. if this happens it will be a 7-2 shift. You can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye with a 7-2 leftist lean.

This would change the face of the country for the next 30 years at least.

If any election is important it is 2016. Like him or not Trump is our best bet to hold onto our country.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 5:53:54 PM EDT
We're fucked.
I might as well crack a Molsen and light my backwoods and watch this country turn to shit. Until then, I'm going to keep buying ammo, and mags. Plates are next to purchase. It's pathetic that a state 1.5hrs away can own any gun and any magazine but I cannot. What gives them more rights than I? Wait, I'm being stripped of my rights by a left wing liberal cock sucker that swallows and takes it in the ass all at the same time. Back in the day everyone stood up and told them people off with affirmative actions. Now we all sit and make phone calls. It's the truth and don't deny. I donate, I call and email the state. I try my best with my current schedule. It's only the matter of time until we have no rights. Hopefully America wakes up.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 6:09:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jgreen2193:
We're fucked.
I might as well crack a Molsen and light my backwoods and watch this country turn to shit. Until then, I'm going to keep buying ammo, and mags. Plates are next to purchase. It's pathetic that a state 1.5hrs away can own any gun and any magazine but I cannot. What gives them more rights than I? Wait, I'm being stripped of my rights by a left wing liberal cock sucker that swallows and takes it in the ass all at the same time. Back in the day everyone stood up and told them people off with affirmative actions. Now we all sit and make phone calls. It's the truth and don't deny. I donate, I call and email the state. I try my best with my current schedule. It's only the matter of time until we have no rights. Hopefully America wakes up.
View Quote

Not enough 'fucks' or ' cocksuckers'.

6 out of 10.

10 out of 10 for being right on point.
Link Posted: 6/20/2016 6:38:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:

The unfortunate part is that the lower courts did find the laws constitutional, which stands. What we can take solace in is that there is still hope in other circuits. (Though we really should hope that the states in them aren't ever put into that situation)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By nutter:
Yup! Not hearing it was the best outcome for everyone!

Yes both sides can claim a win strange as it sounds. Their side for the law not being ruled unconstitutional, and our side for the law not being ruled constitutional.

The unfortunate part is that the lower courts did find the laws constitutional, which stands. What we can take solace in is that there is still hope in other circuits. (Though we really should hope that the states in them aren't ever put into that situation)

Yeah I was talking more about the federal level than state level with SCOTUS not hearing the appeal. At the state level here in CT we're still fucked, but we already knew that.

Best we can hope for is for Trump to win in November, and get the chance to seat someone pro 2A to replace Scalia, and Thomas if he retires. Then have CCDL reapply to have the case heard and have a 5-4 or even better 6-3 pro 2A leaning court take up the appeal and hopefully rule an AWB unconstitutional in some way shape or fashion.
Link Posted: 6/21/2016 6:33:59 AM EDT
Fuck those assholes
Link Posted: 6/21/2016 4:53:39 PM EDT
I'm gad they didn't hear it CT was about to F it up for everyone. Idk whats happened to this once great nation we went to war with the worlds strongest standing military over a few tax's now we just bend over and take it.
Link Posted: 6/21/2016 5:33:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/21/2016 5:33:39 PM EDT by Tbr1806]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vortex556:
I'm gad they didn't hear it CT was about to F it up for everyone. Idk whats happened to this once great nation we went to war with the worlds strongest standing military over a few tax's now we just bend over and take it.
View Quote


start here and keep reading
Top Top